DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The Abstract line 5, includes claim language (i.e. “comprises”).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The applicant is reminded that when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “pickleball testing device” (Emphasis on “pickleball”) is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Stephens (US 20050043127 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Stephens teaches an airflow generating unit that comprises a turbine fan 4 (Interpreted as a blower generating assembly) and a base 3 that supports the turbine fan 4 and supplies power 5 to the turbine fan 4, the turbine fan 4 and the base 3 being covered by an outer casing (Fig. 1), and the upper side of the outer casing featuring a protruding connection member 7; and the airflow circulating unit 8 comprises an airflow channel 9 [0020][0027]that is a hollow tubular column (Fig. 1), and the lower end of the airflow channel 9 is connected to the connection member 7; wherein: the turbine fan 4 generates an airflow, then transfers the airflow to the connection member 7 (fig. 1), causing the flow of air to move upward (fig. 1)along the airflow channel 9 (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7 Stephens teaches the airflow generated by the turbine fan has a flow rate between 10 kilometers per hour and 100 kilometers per hour when exiting the airflow channel (Inherent speeds with respect to a blower / turbine supplied airflow apparatus))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8-12 & 13-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious an upper end of an airflow channel that contains multiple straightening tubes extending along the axial direction of an airflow channel, the straightening tubes dividing the airflow channel along the axial direction into multiple tubular channels.
Claims 3-6 are objected to based on their dependency of claim 2.
Regarding claims 8-12 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious an imaging module, wherein the imaging module comprises one or more cameras facing an upper end of an airflow channel to capture or record an image, and an image recognition system to identify the image.
Regarding claims 13-17 the cited prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious a photoelectric sensing device for detecting the position at the upper end of the airflow channel, the photoelectric sensing device containing a laser beam emitter.
Claims 18-20 are objected to based on their dependency of claims 13-17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150190021 A1 VERTICALLY ORIENTED DEBRIS BLOWER ASSEMBLY MOUNTED TO OUTDOOR POWER EQUIPMENT UNIT
US 3887182 A Fluid stream game apparatus
US 9420924 B2 Oscillating airstream nozzle for debris blower
JP 2022187134 A SPHERE LEVITATION DEVICE
WO 2023184655 A1 PRESSURE-ADJUSTABLE VORTEX BLOWER
CN 223512244 U cylindrical air purifier
CN 221860213 U Vertical high-concentration dust environment simulation device
CN 107190682 A A modular assembly of blower
US 20250089633 A1 Consumer-grade or professional-grade air-moving device e.g. double chamber leaf blower, for propeling air, for drone, has second fan system for propeling second flow of air having second flow characteristic, where first and second flows of air are combined in exhaust area to form combined airflow
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina M Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights